ACTUALLY... as 3D printers that are able to get more and more precise are becoming more and more mainstream, that's not entirely unreasonable. Currently the technology isn't readily available to be able to print on a molecular level consistently, but as the technology is refined and becomes more available for studies of new ways to adapt it and make it more exact, it's entirely possible to be able to create designer medications. Imagine medication that was based on your specific DNA and physiology - side effects would be a thing of the past because each formula would be tailored to you specifically, and would be able to account for your unique body chemistry. If you could create a formula molecule by molecule, why couldn't you take 2 molecules of hydrogen and 1 molecule of oxygen and bond them to create water? We've been 3D mapping chemicals for years now. At this point, it's just a matter of being able to build on that small of a scale.

NASA is also working with Texas-based company Systems and Materials Research Consultancy to explore the possibility of using a 3D printer for making food in space. Naturally, the big concerns with that are safety, acceptability, variety, and nutritional value.

One of the most important part of any tool/spare part is its material. Parts are tested to work with other parts when manutectured out of specified material. Those specifications are vital for everything to be working as designed.

So how come everyone here pretends that materials are irrelevant?

It seems that the next logical step would be to print pills - as long as the tablets come in the right shape and color we'd be ok, right?

As InformationWeek Government readers were busy firming up their fiscal year 2015 budgets, we asked them to rate more than 30 IT initiatives in terms of importance and current leadership focus. No surprise, among more than 30 options, security is No. 1. After that, things get less predictable.